ANIRUDHAN Vs. PHILIP JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under S.138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 50,000. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is not disputed. The notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The complainant examined his power of attorney holder as P.W. 1. He was allegedly a witness to the transaction also. The Manager of the drawee bank was examined as P.W. 2. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that all ingredients of the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act have been established. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.

(3.) Before the Trial Court, though no reply was given to the notice of demand, a defence was attempted to be raised that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but only as security when a transaction for a much lesser amount was entered into between the complainant and the accused. That cheque leaf was being misutilised by the complainant and P.W. 1 to stake totally unsustainable and false claim against the petitioner. It was contended that the complainant and P.W.1 were members of a beneficiary committee and as their benamidar the petitioner had undertaken some work. It is in connection with that work that the earlier transaction was entered into and the blank cheque was allegedly given, it was contended.